[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3954-3955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           U.S. OIL SECURITY

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I heard my good friend from Nevada make a 
statement earlier today concerning our delay in getting around to 
producing an ANWR amendment. Let me assure the Senator, we do have an 
ANWR amendment, and we will present it as soon as it is finalized, as 
it is taking some time.
  I have come to the Senate Chamber right now, though, to make some 
remarks about Iraq. I am certain that everyone in the Senate knows that 
Iraq has announced today it will suspend its oil exports for the next 
30 days.
  Libya and Iran have immediately expressed support for that action and 
warned they will follow suit if other Arab oil-producing countries also 
curtailed their shipments of oil. In other words, we are on the verge 
of another embargo.
  Without any question about it, we have now seen that Iraq is using 
oil as a weapon to deal with our policies with regard to the Middle 
East.
  During the year 2001, the United States imported nearly 287 million 
barrels of oil from Iraq.
  I have in the Chamber a chart that shows where those 287.3 million 
barrels of oil went throughout our Nation.
  The average price of crude oil in 2001 was $22.93 per barrel. That 
means, with simple arithmetic, the United States paid Iraq $6.58 
billion for its oil last year.
  The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq confirmed last week that Saddam 
Hussein has paid $25,000 to the families of each of the Palestinian 
suicide bombers. Let's think of that again. Iraq alone has paid to the 
families of the suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000 per incident. In 
other words, we are paying that. We are giving Iraq the cash to reward 
those who are committing suicide while bombing innocent people in 
Israel.
  Furthermore, I want the Senate to know that today Venezuela announced 
a multiday strike at the Government-owned oil-producing facilities. 
Venezuela is one of the top three suppliers of oil to the United 
States.
  This morning, the President expressed his concern that increased 
gasoline prices would slow down our economic recovery. There is no 
question about that.
  Recently, the U.S. News & World Report has changed its editorial 
policy concerning ANWR. I want to call the attention of the Senate to 
an article entitled, ``A Waste of Energy?'' on page 25 of the U.S. News 
& World Report of April 1. It is a very interesting article when one 
considers the past editorial policy of that great national magazine.
  Make no mistake about it, we are very close to a vote that would be 
quite similar to the one that took place when Alaska finally obtained 
permission to go ahead with the oil pipeline. At that time, however--
and I say this respectfully--even though the then-majority leader, Mike 
Mansfield, opposed our amendment, even though the committee chairman, 
Senator Jackson, opposed our amendment, no filibuster was threatened, 
no filibuster took place in consideration of the oil pipeline 
amendment. Why? Because we all knew then, as we all should know now, 
that oil is a matter of national security.
  As we proceed this week, we will bring out proof of the statesmen who 
have led this country since the 1940s. Each and every one has said oil 
is a matter of national security. Yet we are facing the prospect that 
the ANWR amendment, when we offer it, is going to be facing a 
filibuster--again, with due respect --led by the majority leader and 
the majority side of the Senate.
  There should never be--there should never be--a filibuster against a 
matter of national security. I really believe that before we are 
through, before this week is out, the American citizens are going to be 
demanding there be an up-or-down vote on the ANWR amendment and no 
filibuster. And if, God forbid, by Thursday or Friday of this week we 
have a full-blown embargo, and we have the gas lines we all remember 
from the 1970s, I do hope we will understand this bill has to be 
considered, the ANWR amendment adopted, and the bill sent to the 
President as soon as possible.
  If we had been permitted to proceed with ANWR as we sought to proceed 
when President George Bush, the 41st President of the United States, 
requested Congress to allow us to proceed, we would have ANWR oil on 
line now.
  During the height of the Persian Gulf war, 2.1 million barrels of oil 
a day were sent down the Alaska oil pipeline. When I was there last 
week, I was told it was 925,000 barrels a day. Where are we getting the 
balance of the oil? We are currently getting it from Iraq. And now it 
is going to be shut down.
  I have asked the oil industry to tell us whether it is possible that 
they might proceed to produce in an uneconomic manner to refill that 
barrel, if this shortage continues. There is oil in northern Alaska now 
that could fill that barrel, but it would be uneconomic to produce it 
at the rates that would be required because the reserves are not that 
great anymore without our opportunity to drill in the area known as 
ANWR, which is part of the 1.5-million acre tract that was set aside in 
1980 by an amendment sponsored by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas 
for oil and gas exploration. I will be going into that at length this 
week, too.
  They promised me and committed to me that one of the things they 
would go along with, if we would finally approve the so-called ANILCA, 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, was that 1.5 
million acres in the Arctic would be left available for oil and gas 
exploration. I will produce the letters that were exchanged by those 
two Senators with all of the Senate, and the comments they made at the 
time. I will even show you a photograph of Senator Jackson, Senator 
Tsongas, and I standing there at the passage of the bill in which the 
promise was made that oil and gas exploration could be continued in 
that 1.5 million acres we all knew was part of the Arctic that has 
enormous promise for production of oil and gas.
  The main reason for speaking now is to say to the Senate, the time is 
right. There is no longer any time for partisan debate on this issue. 
This is a matter of national security. Before the week is out, we are 
again going to see gas lines in this country. I cannot emphasize too 
greatly my feeling about the delay that has taken place now since 1980.
  In 1980, Senators Jackson and Tsongas committed to help us get that 
oil exploration going to determine if oil and gas could be produced in 
substantial quantities from that Arctic coast area. That promise has 
not been kept because of the opposition that has come from the radical 
portion of the environmental lobbying group in this city. It is time to 
put radical environmentalists behind us and realize this country is 
united in trying to fight this war against global terrorism.
  I am also going to bring in a nice big poster. Do you know who is on 
that poster? General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is saying to the oil and 
gas workers in World War II: Stay on the job because we need oil. 
Without oil, our military cannot function.
  That same thing is true now. The military is consuming vast 
quantities of oil, and we have to have oil to fight this war.
  I hope the Senate is willing to listen to me for a long time this 
week because as this situation gets worse, I will remind the Senate 
again and again and again. The ANWR issue should have been closed out 
in 1981. Now, 21 years later, at the time the crisis we all feared has 
come, we still are facing a filibuster against approval of what the 
Senate and the President of the United States agreed to when that bill 
was passed in 1980.
  I thank my friends for allowing me to speak at this time.

[[Page 3955]]



                          ____________________